Bill Siksay

[Income Tax Act, April 3rd, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-532, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (low-cost residential rental property).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act (low-cost residential rental property). The bill is seconded by my colleague, the member for Victoria, and stems from her deep interest in and work to find solutions to the affordable housing crisis in Canada and from her experiences as a city councillor in Victoria and member of Parliament for that city. The member for London—Fanshawe has also worked to develop this bill.

The bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax incentive to encourage landlords to invest in the purchase of low-cost residential rental property. It calls on the government to develop regulations which would allow for the rollover of recaptured depreciation on the sale of rental property in cases where the proceeds from the sale of such property are reinvested in the purchase of low-cost rental property in the same year.

It is the intention of this legislation to encourage the maintenance of and stimulate an increase in the stock of affordable rental housing in Canada. Affordable rental housing is key to the needs of many Canadians and their families.

This measure is only a small part of an approach to dealing with the affordable housing crisis in Canada. No single measure and certainly no measure as specific as this one can replace the need for a national housing program that actually builds affordable housing in Canada. Tax measures, building programs: no stone should be left unturned in finding a solution to the housing crisis.

The member for Victoria and I believe this measure is one that deserves the serious consideration of the House and that is why we are tabling this bill today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just us in this corner of the House that are saying that there is another path that should be pursued in Afghanistan.

Even President Karzai has said that we need to be pursuing a political solution and a peace process in Afghanistan. I am going to quote what he said on Radio Free Europe on September 29, 2007. He said:

We are ready to negotiate to bring peace [to] this country. Continuation of the war, explosions, and suicide attacks should be stopped in any way possible. There were some contacts with [Taliban] in the past. But there is no specific, clear-cut line of communication -- I mean, there is no official place for communication with the Taliban. I wish there were such a place.

That is the President of Afghanistan saying that he hoped that there could be a place created now in Afghanistan for that kind of process of talks, of negotiations with, of all people, of all organizations and of all groups, the Taliban, because he understands that it is important to the future of Afghanistan.

I think that there is a lesson that we can learn from his words. If he is the ally that we have heard he is, we should understand what he has said to us and take that very seriously. We intend to do that in this corner of the House. We intend to say that the path to peace is one that we should be pursuing, that we should be putting effort into, and we are going to continue to put that idea forward.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I did not yell at Conservatives when they were making their interventions in this important debate tonight and I wish they would have the same respect for those of us who may disagree with them.

I look forward to the opportunity to represent our views in this discussion and the views of many other Canadians. When those members heckle or yell at me because of what I am saying, they are also heckling and yelling at many Canadians who believe what I believe and have taken similar positions and have similar concerns. It is inappropriate to engage in that kind of activity given the seriousness of this debate.

I am never going to be one who underestimates the difficulties and the challenges of pursuing a path of peace. I am never going to be one who underestimates the risk of going down that kind of path. It is a difficult one and it requires effort and risk taking and the support of people through very difficult times and very difficult processes.

To undermine and underestimate the importance of that and the difficulty of that is also a serious problem with the kind of discussion we are having here tonight. Of course--

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the parliamentary secretary had listened a little more closely to what I was saying, because I did recognize very clearly in my remarks that we have to train our armed forces to prepare for war. That is a key aspect of their training.

I am a little concerned that my colleague described peacemaking activities as the lowest common denominator of military activities. I find that is quite offensive and I think most Canadians would find that quite offensive.

Many Canadians have died doing the dangerous work of peacekeeping around the world. When Canadians participate in those kinds of missions, they have literally put themselves between warring combatants to hold the peace. There is no more dangerous work than that. Lives of Canadians were lost doing that kind of work. I think it is rather offensive to call that the lowest common denominator of military work. It is not an appropriate comment.

Canada has a proud tradition of military work. There is no armed force in the world that is better at it, that has more expertise in it, than the Canadian armed forces. Most Canadians are proud of our Canadian Forces and their work in peacekeeping over the years. I hope, as I am sure most Canadians hope, that we can resume that kind of role for our armed forces internationally.

There is nothing tougher than putting oneself between people at war, between people who have decided to kill each other to solve problems that may have arisen between them. We should not be dismissive of our peacekeeping missions for one second, even in the heat of a debate on an important issue like the war in Afghanistan.

I do not believe that we are talking about anecdotal evidence. The Manley report is one of the pieces of evidence that I quoted from which indicated how badly the effort in Afghanistan is going. That is hardly anecdotal evidence for the problems of the mission in Afghanistan. Mr. Manley may have reached different conclusions than I have, but certainly the evidence that he and his team have presented is worth considering. The quote I read about how badly the mission has gone, how badly the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in the last two years, was directly from the Manley report. I hardly think that is anecdotal evidence.

It is a reason to build a strong case for this being the wrong mission for Canada and the effort is not being successful.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to participate in this important debate tonight.

Nothing is more important than a vote to send Canadians to war than a vote to engage in war, and there is no more serious matter that will ever come before the House of Commons.

The decision to send Canadians into war, to ask members of the Canadian armed forces to engage in war and risk their lives is the most serious matter that I can contemplate being asked to consider as a member of Parliament. We must ensure any mission that they are asked to undertake supports the values that Canada represents. We must ensure it is a mission that is not futile. We must ensure it is a mission that has the strong support of Canadians.

The decision to engage in armed conflict, to kill other human beings is something that I will not take lightly. I have to remind the House that this is also what we are doing in Afghanistan. We do not talk a lot about that aspect of the mission, but we are killing people with whom we disagree. Taking others lives must never be done lightly.

I worry that we have not been struggling much with this in Canadian society, that we have been protected from that ugly reality of the war in Afghanistan, that we cannot get those kinds of statistics out of the Canadian armed forces or the government. However, there are many Afghan families for whom the reality of our role in that war has hit home directly because of the death of one of their loved ones in this conflict.

I am not a pacifist, but I do struggle with pacifism and I am challenged by friends and other Canadians who are pacifists.

I remember the legacy of J.S. Woodsworth, the leader of the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation, the precursor to the NDP. At the beginning of World War II, he said the following in the debate in his opposition to the war of Canada entering the second world war:

I rejoice that it is possible to say these things in a Canadian parliament under British institutions. It would not be possible in Germany, I recognize that...and I want to maintain the very essence of our British institutions of real liberty. The only way to do it is by an appeal to the moral forces which are still resident among our people, and not by another resort to brute force.

I think those are important words for us to consider again at this time. We have to be very clear about what engaging in war really means, what the costs of that are, both the personal cost and the cost to our country as a society. It has to be a last resort, as something that must be engaged in only when all else has failed, as a direction that has to be taken for clear and definable reasons related to protecting our security. However, going to war has to be seen as an act that must ultimately be regarded as a failure in itself.

There is a role for the Canadian armed forces, that a traditional peacekeeping role is one of which Canadians have been proud, of which our armed forces have accumulated significant experience and expertise and one that does require that members of our armed forces understand and have trained for war. Sadly, I do not believe that we have that option any longer in Afghanistan now that we have committed to being a combatant in that war. However, this is something that Canada has been known for and of which Canadians are justly proud.

Doing due diligence on sending Canadians to war is the best way I, as an elected representative, can support the women and men of the Canadian armed forces. It is my job to ensure that they are only asked to risk their lives for the most important of reasons, especially when that mission is far from home and when the direct threat to Canada is harder to perceive.

We know the members of the Canadian armed forces will do as they are asked to the very best of their ability. Our job here is to ensure the justice, the feasibility of that request is clear and we have to make sure that it is clear when so much is on the line.

I am glad the government has put this motion before the House. The decision to go to war properly belongs here with the elected representatives of Canadians. I commend the current government for recognizing that. I wish the previous government had followed that path.

The motion before us commits Canada continuing its combat role in Afghanistan through to 2011. I do not support continuing the mission in Afghanistan. It is the wrong mission for Canada. It is a radical departure from the role that Canadians have come to expect from our armed forces, that of peacekeepers who separate combatants rather than taking sides and joining in combat. Canadians know that peacekeeping is a dangerous role and have mourned the death of many Canadians who risked their lives carrying out that task. This should be the role of our armed forces.

We should ensure a clearer understanding of that role as an aspect of public policy, not just as an assumption or understanding. We need to have that understanding more clearly enshrined in our public policy.

We should give immediate notice of our intention to withdraw and that any withdrawal should be done immediately, but should be done in a safe and secure manner.

Why are we in Afghanistan? That question is at the heart of why I believe this is the wrong mission for Canada. We have heard often that we are there because we want to ensure women's rights. We have heard that in the last hour. We have heard that we wanted to ensure that girls could attend school.

As noble as that is, I do not believe for one second that is why Canada sent troops to Afghanistan. Bad as the situation was in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and it was absolutely horrible, it is absolutely wrong to say that that is the reason why Canada is fighting a combat role there today. In any case, I do not believe that many women would want us to engage in an armed conflict to ensure women's right. If that were the case, our military would be very busy around the world and perhaps even have been busy here at home.

In fact, the situation for women and girls has not dramatically improved. A case in point, the only woman elected to the Afghan parliament from a constituency, who was not on a party list, Malali Joya, was suspended recently for her criticism of the Afghan government, hardly a shining moment for democracy in Afghanistan or a shining moment for the participation of women in that government.

We are in Afghanistan because of the fear that gripped the United States and Canada and many other countries after the events of September 11, 2001. Post-September 11 the U.S. was looking to retaliate for the horrible attacks on New York and Washington, and we got caught up in that call for retaliation.

It is hard to see how invading Afghanistan was the appropriate response to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Those who carried out the attacks were Saudis, for instance. How conventional warfare can defeat terrorism has never been clearly demonstrated to my satisfaction in any case.

Frankly, I worry there are other reasons too that we are in Afghanistan, reasons related to the control of oil resources and the security of their transport. I worry too that we are there to take the pressure off the United States for the difficulties of the war in Iraq, a war that most Canadians believe is an illegal war and which our government refused to participate in.

Also, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is internal Afghan politics, regional disputes, the ambitions of warlords, which will never be solved by western intervention, especially western military intervention. This war has only made the situation worse.

We have a choice. The choice is between continuing the war or charting a path to peace. That is what the NDP is proposing. We do not say we should just abandon Afghanistan. We do not believe we should abandon our responsibilities as members of the global community or as a country that has participated actively in this war. However, we must put all our efforts into seeing a plan for a political solution in Afghanistan.

There is considerable opinion to say that the war in Afghanistan will not be won, that the war is an approach that only creates more problems, or that situation is getting worse, not better. Who said that? Here are some of the quotes that we have heard a number of times already in this debate.

One quote is, “every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you”. Major General Andrew Leslie, former chief of the Canadian land staff, said that.

Another quote is from retired Colonel Michel Drapeau, who said, “I don't think Canada is winning the war, and this war is not winnable”.

British Captain Leo Docherty said that Afghanistan is a “textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency”.

Another quote is, “the situation is deteriorating and...NATO forces risk appearing like an army of occupation.” That is from the defence minister of Belgium.

Another one is, “one should not try to bury one's head in the sand...the operation is encountering real difficulties.... the situation is not improving.” The French defence minister said that.

Finally, “if...the international community cannot find a”—political solution—“...then...we have no moral right to ask our young people to expose themselves to that danger”. The United Kingdom's defence minister said that.

Even the Manley report has noted that the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in the Kandahar region. It states:

By many knowledgeable accounts, security generally has deteriorated in the South and East of Afghanistan, including Kandahar province where Canadian Forces are based, through 2006 and 2007. The Taliban insurgency to some degree has regrouped during the past 18 months; the frequency of its small attacks and the numbers of civilian fatalities it has inflicted were higher in 2007 than in 2006.

The war in Afghanistan has now gone on longer than the world wars and there is no end in sight, and by any measure this war is not being a success.

We can chart a path to peace, and here in this corner of the House we believe we can do that. That is expressed in our amendment to the motion before us, wherein the NDP has called on the government:

—to begin preparations for safe withdrawal of Canadian soldiers from the combat mission in Afghanistan with no further mission extensions;

—that the government should engage in a robust diplomatic process to prepare the groundwork for a political solution under explicit UN direction and authority, engaging both regional and local stakeholders and ensuring the full respect for international human rights and humanitarian law;

that, in the opinion of the House, the government should maintain the current suspension of the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities until substantial reforms of the prison system are undertaken;

—that the government should provide effective and transparent development assistant under civilian direction consistent with the Afghan Compact.

We need to get the control out of the hands of NATO, a military alliance, and put it back in the direct control of the United Nations. If the United Nations has a skill set, it is at dealing with regional conflicts, and there is a significant regional conflict at the heart of the war in Afghanistan. The United Nations can bring significant civilian resources to the solving of the situation in Afghanistan.

Some will say that the United Nations has authorized the NATO mission. The United Nations has essentially contracted out the war in Afghanistan to NATO and it should take back direct control of that operation.

We need to support the kind of measures outlined by Oxfam in its Continuing Peace Building in Afghanistan report. Robert Fox from Oxfam said:

Our report shows that a national strategy for community peace-building is five years overdue: with increasing levels of violence, there is no time to lose.

Oxfam points out that most efforts to build peace have been at a national level, where they have been stymied by warlords, corruption or criminality. It states:

The recent deterioration in security, particularly in the south and southeast, is evidence that the top down approaches by themselves are inadequate without parallel nationwide, peace-work at the ground level.

For the vast majority of disputes, Afghans turn to local institutions to solve them....Yet little has been done to enhance communities' capabilities to resolve problems peacefully, reduce violence and resist militant interference.

It talks about the key elements of a national community peace building strategy, which include: phased capacity building throughout the country; peace-building taught in all schools and incorporated into teacher training; awareness raising initiatives, at national and local levels; mechanisms to monitor shuras' adherence to the constitution in human rights; measures to clarify the role of informal justice in the courts.

Mr. Fox noted:

Existing measures to promote peace in Afghanistan are not succeeding, not only because of the revival of the Taliban, but also because little has been done to support families, communities and tribes—the fundamental units of Afghan society—to resolve disputes among them.

There have been serious problems with how we have conducted the war. We know the problems of prisoner transfers. We should never have transferred prisoners to Afghan authorities and should not be doing so.

We know that torture has been practised in the Afghan prison system. We have obligations under the Geneva Convention about how we deal with prisoners and we must take responsibility for their safety, security and treatment. If we are prepared to be engaged in war in Afghanistan, we should have engaged all of the responsibilities related to that engagement and our obligations to prisoners taken have not been met.

The whole question of the military delivery of development aid is one that I first raised in the previous Parliament in discussions in a take note debate on Afghanistan. We now hear that the Manley report is recommending so-called signature projects, mostly for Canadian consumption, to show how the war is going well. We know that military projects, military delivered aid, have often been to allow for more effective military operations, not necessarily to assist the civilian population.

Canada has traditionally not used the military to deliver aid. It has been for us a civilian exercise. We need to get back to that tradition.

I also want to mention the situation of Omar Khadr, the Canadian child who was caught up in the war in Afghanistan, a Canadian child soldier who remains the only western foreign national in the Guantanamo detention camp. We should have had him home a long time ago. We put a lie to any concern that Canada has ever expressed for child soldiers around the world and the adults who manipulate them by not having done something about his situation. It is another example of how we are not taking all aspects and complications of being at war seriously.

I do not believe that more troops will solve the problem. Where does the number of 1,000 come from? Where is the commitment from other countries to support that number? Look at the experience of the Soviet Union. There are so many parallels and it had so many more troops in Afghanistan than we do and were still unsuccessful there in a mission that looks very similar to what we purport to be doing there.

There is the question of the spending on the war. We are spending billions of dollars on the war effort. We are spending to outfit our armed forces for combat. As I have already said, I do not believe that this should be their international role and I am concerned that a peacemaking role may demand other kinds of equipment and resources. We may be tying our hands for many years to come.

We have spent over $7 billion so far and now we learn that we have overspent this year's budget for the war by $1 billion alone. The fiscal management of the war effort seems to have been lost. The so-called great financial managers in the current government seem to be failing and dramatically so when it comes to managing the costs of the war in Afghanistan. It is taking significant resources at a time when there are other significant needs here at home and around the world. The proportion of aid and development aid to military spending is all wrong in terms of this effort.

The significant problems faced by returning veterans and their families and the failure to ensure appropriate health care support and assistance is also a serious issue. We have asked these people to risk their lives and their health. There should be no questions asked when it comes to providing the best care for any veteran who served in Afghanistan. There is absolutely no excuse for this continuing to be a problem in Canada.

This is the wrong mission for Canada. Canadian and Afghan lives are being lost. Life in Afghanistan is not improving. Opium production is up. Corruption is up. Suicide attacks are up. Security has not been improved. Women are not more equal or freer. We are not winning this war and I do not believe we can win this war. We must begin in earnest the search for a political solution, the search for a path to peace.

I cannot in good conscience vote to commit to Canada's continuing participation in the war in Afghanistan. We should withdraw immediately, safely and securely. We should undertake a comprehensive peace process. We should make sure that we have an ongoing commitment to aid and development work in Afghanistan.

We should live in the hope of these familiar words, “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech earlier today the member for Halifax addressed the whole question of the need for more initiatives around peacemaking, seeking peace and working toward peace in Afghanistan. I want to read a quote from Oxfam's “Community Peacebuilding in Afghanistan” report:

As Oxfam research shows, for the vast majority of Afghans, problems have local causes and people turn to local institutions and individuals to resolve them. Yet little work has been done with local institutions and other actors, especially with shuras, to enhance their capabilities to promote peace. Peace work at the community level strengthens community cohesion, reduces violence, and enhances resistance to militants.

Canada is talking about signature projects that will publicize the effort in Afghanistan, mainly to Canadians. We have seen how some of our aid in Afghanistan seems to have been primarily directed at bolstering the military effort, the road building efforts for instance, and not necessarily directed to what is good and best for the Afghan people.

I wonder if the member for Halifax could comment on what Oxfam says is a deficiency in our foreign aid commitment to Afghanistan.

[The Environment, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, tonight the House will have the opportunity to vote on a straightforward confidence motion sponsored by New Democrats. It expresses our deep frustration that, despite the urgent need to effectively address the climate change crisis, the Conservative government refuses to bring the clean air and climate change act to a vote.

The Conservatives' original clean air act did not have the support of the House, environmentalists or Canadians. That was when New Democrats succeeded in convincing all parties that the bill should be completely rewritten in a process whereby all parties could have input and influence.

It was rewritten. Now the new clean air and climate change act contains ideas championed by all parties and is supported by the environmental community.

Still the government refuses to bring it to a vote. Given the climate change crisis, this Parliament must act. By passing the clean air and climate change act, this Parliament can take action that will make a difference.

Canadians want action from this Parliament on climate change. The Conservatives have not taken their responsibility for climate change seriously. They do not have the confidence of Canadians when it comes to dealing with this crisis. They should not command the confidence of this House.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. Mr. Manley said in his report that Canada should be doing “signature” projects that would be easily promoted in Canada.

We also know that as an aid project the military has been building roads that seem to support the military operations, but Oxfam says that what has not been done are local projects that build community capabilities to solve problems, reduce violence, enhance resistance to militants and strengthen community coherence, and that this is a major project toward peace.

Could the minister tell us what kinds of projects at the very local level Canada is supporting?

[Criminal Code, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the animal cruelty legislation before us today, a private member's bill that comes from the Senate.

In am pleased to speak on it because I am so frustrated and share the frustration of so many of my constituents with the lack of progress in Parliament on new legislation to protect animals. Many attempts have been made to do this, but they have been stalled or turned down by the Senate over the years. Time and time again, the legislation has failed to go forward.

Now we are presented with this very flawed legislation, legislation that does not address the important problems that we face in society when it comes to dealing with cruelty to animals. As we already have heard this morning, the legislation in front of us is not comprehensive. We need a comprehensive reworking of the animal cruelty laws in Canada.

The legislation currently on the books dates from 1892, and much has changed in our understanding of how we should deal with animals since then. We need to have comprehensive legislation.

The bill today only deals with the question of penalties associated with acts of animal cruelty. It does not deal with fundamental issues like changing the idea that animals are seen as property and not as sentient beings. This needs to be changed. We need to understand that an animal is a sentient being, not just a piece of property. The legislation before us does not deal with this.

For many years, one of the problems with the current legislation is it is almost impossible to get a conviction. That is one of the key frustrations. We have legislation now, but there is less than a 1% conviction rate when it comes to dealing with and punishing people who have been found to have committed cruelty to animals. That is not acceptable.

The bill before us would increase the penalties, but it would do nothing to enable officials to obtain convictions against those who would perpetrate cruelty to animals. That is absolutely unacceptable.

We need comprehensive legislation that updates our understanding of animals in our society and our understanding of our responsibility for them. We also need to make it possible to convict those who would commit acts of cruelty to an animal.

When the justice committee looked at the bill, my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh had a stroke of genius. He proposed an amendment that would replace the provisions of this Senate private member's bill with the old provisions of Bill C-50, a bill that the House supported in its day and sent to the Senate, a bill that was comprehensive legislation, a bill that would not only increase the penalties for those convicted, but would also make it possible to obtain those convictions.

I cannot understand why Liberals and Conservatives on the justice committee would have voted down that amendment when it was found to be in order by the chair. It just does not make sense.

Canadians want action on animal cruelty, and we have stalled too long. The Senate has overturned the efforts of the House of Commons too often in this regard. We have to ensure that we have good, comprehensive, enforceable legislation on this issue. Canadians demand it.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I need to respond because when I am critical of what Conservative members have said at committee, it is only because they were using their comments to try and limit the freedom of expression.

They were trying to say that certain film and video productions should not be happening in Canada because they did not meet their personal standards of acceptability. That is my defence of the freedom of expression in Canada.

I have never criticized a particular production in Canada saying that it was inappropriate to be made here. However, other members have implied, or said directly, that those productions should not have been made and should not have received assistance from taxpayers. They may not like it, but many other Canadian taxpayers will.

I am a little confused by the parliamentary secretary's statement because, as he pointed out, there are guidelines that exist now for the application of the Canadian film and video production tax credit program. They are there. They were produced by the Liberals, but that does not necessarily mean that they are right and that does not necessarily mean that now that a problem has been identified with them, it should not be fixed. That is what we are here to do.

We are here to respond to the kinds of concerns that are raised by Canadians, and certainly people in the arts community have raised very serious concerns about the breadth of this particular guideline and the fact that the Conservatives are now enshrining it in law, not just in a set of guidelines. That is even more concerning.

That is why we are here. That is what we are discussing. Just because it is there, does not mean it should not be fixed.